JASWINDER SINGH ETC Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are serving as Field Investigators in the office of the Labour Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh. They were interviewed by a Departmental Selection Committee and appointed on ad hoc basis on November 25, 1970. The Labour Department of the State of Punjab inserted a citation in the Daily Tribune dated September 24, 1973, declaring therein that applications were invited for three temporary posts of Field Investigators (one reserved for the scheduled castes and one for the released Indian Armed Forces personnel who had jointed service or were commissioned on or after 1st November, 1962, and were released thereafter). Apart from mentioning the Masters Degree and a year's experience in collection, compilation and analysis of statistical data in some Government office as the necessary qualifications, the citation also mentioned that Graduates with Economics or Mathematics or Agricultural subjects with three year's experience of collection, compilation and analysis of statistical data in some Government office would also be eligible for the said posts.

(2.) The petitioners have challenged this decision of the Government on two grounds. Firstly, the reservation being more than 10 per cent was, according to them, violative of Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution. Secondly, the rules provide Masters Degree as the minimum qualification and it was not open to the State Government to depart from this rule by entertaining the applications submitted by the Graduates.

(3.) In order to appreciate the first contention raised on behalf of the petitions, it becomes necessary to analysis Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution. Article 14 lays down that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of laws. This Article as been interpreted by the Courts to mean that persons similarly situated should be accorded similar treatment but the State was not disentitled to make a reasonable classification in matters relating to services. This classification should of course have some nexus with the objects sought to be achieved. Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution are in a sense the extension of the same principle. Under Article 15(2) no citizen can be discriminated against on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex and place of birth etc. This is subject to a proviso which appears in a shape of Article 15(4) enabling the State Government to make such provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. While interpreting the provisions of Article 15, the Supreme Court held that special provision or reservation could be made for the members of the scheduled castes and it was observed that while making reservation the State should strike a happy balance so that the rights of the General public should not unduly suffer. In that context it was held that reservation made in favour of the scheduled castes should not exceed 50 per cent of the available posts. Reference in this connection may be had to Devadasan v. Union of India and another, 1964 AIR(SC) 179the principle enunciated in this authority is applied to the facts and circumstances of this case, the reservation cannot be held to be illegal because only 33 per cent of the total number of seats have been reserved for the members of the scheduled castes. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that reservation in favour of the members of the Armed Forces should also be regarded as a reservation prohibited by law. This argument loses sight of the plain language used in Article 15(2) of the Constitution, which reads as under :-